As the life-saving benefits of hazardous condition detectors are recognized, their usage continues to expand. Such hazardous condition detectors include smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, flammable vapor detectors, combination units, etc. Indeed, the installation of such detectors is mandated in many states by building code for all new construction of single and multi-family dwellings, office buildings, schools, etc. Further, many areas also require that such detectors be installed in existing homes before they may be sold.
Because many such structures include multiple floors, rooms, or areas on or in which a remotely located hazardous condition detector may not be heard, it is recommended that multiple hazardous condition detectors be located throughout the structure or dwelling to increase the likelihood of early detection of a hazardous condition. Such early detection is a direct factor in the survivability of the occupants within the dwelling or structure.
In a typical single family dwelling having a basement and two stories, at least one hazardous condition detector should be placed on each floor of the dwelling. That is, at least one detector should be placed in the basement, on the first floor, and on the second floor. In this way, a hazardous condition that originates in the basement may be detected sooner than if the only hazardous detector were located on the second floor. Indeed, even in single floor plan dwellings or structures, it is recommended to include multiple detectors at various locations. For example, a hazardous condition detector may be located in the utility room housing the furnace, water heater, etc., one in the kitchen and one in each of the bedrooms or in the hallway by the bedrooms. Regardless of the configuration, however, the use of multiple hazardous condition detectors provides the advantage of detecting the hazardous condition early to allow the occupants as much time as possible to avoid danger.
While the use of multiple hazardous condition detectors at different locations throughout a dwelling or structure increases the likelihood of detecting a hazardous condition early, the layout of the dwelling or structure may well prevent an occupant from hearing the alarm of the hazardous condition detector located in proximity to the hazardous condition when it sounds. For example, if the hazardous condition detector in the basement of a two-story single family dwelling were to detect a hazardous condition and sound its alarm, the occupants who may be asleep on the second story may not be able to hear the alarm sounding in the basement. Indeed, many dwellings are constructed with insulation between the stories for the very purpose of stopping the transmission of noise therebetween. However, such sound insulation may well detract from the advantage of installing multiple hazardous condition detectors throughout the dwelling. If the hazardous condition continues to expand, the other detectors in the dwelling or structure will eventually detect this hazardous condition and hopefully alert the occupant of the existence of such a condition in time for the occupant to escape the danger.
To overcome this problem, the hazardous condition detectors may be interconnected or networked together utilizing a wired connection or wireless transmission. In some installations the hazardous condition detectors report to a central control module which may then command the other hazardous condition detectors to sound their alarms throughout the dwelling. In other embodiments, the hazardous condition detectors communicate among themselves without requiring a central control module. In such an installation the detecting hazardous condition detector sounds its alarm and transmits a hazardous condition detected signal to the other interconnected hazardous condition detectors. These detectors then sound their alarm to notify the occupant of the detected hazardous condition within the dwelling.
Circuitry within the detectors ensures that only an alarm for the detected hazardous condition be sounded. That is, it is common for many dwellings or structures to include multiples types of hazardous condition detectors, each having a distinctive alarm pattern to alert the user to the different types of detected hazardous conditions. For example, a typical single family dwelling may include both smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. In such an installation, the detection of smoke will result in only smoke alarms being sounded throughout the dwelling. That is, no carbon monoxide alarm signal will be sounded by a carbon monoxide detector because smoke is detected by one of the other hazardous condition detectors. The converse is also true. As a result, only the hazardous condition detectors that are capable of sounding the alarm corresponding to the detected hazardous condition will sound such an alarm. The other hazardous condition detectors that are not capable of sounding an alarm that corresponds to the detected hazardous condition will remain silent. One such system of providing communication between hazardous condition detectors is provided in U.S. Pat. No. 6,611,204, entitled “Hazard Alarm, System, and Communication Therefore”, the teachings and disclosure of which are hereby incorporated in their entireties by reference thereto. However, other systems of communication and interconnection between hazardous condition detectors may also be used.
Since hazardous condition detectors are typically silent due to the absence of a hazardous condition, it is recommended that the user periodically test the functionality of the hazardous condition detector to ensure its continued operation. Typically, each hazardous condition detector includes a self-test button that may be depressed by the user to initiate a detector self-test. To initiate the test, the user depresses and holds the button while the detector performs its internal self-test. If the user releases the button prior to the completion of the self-test, the detector will typically abort the self-test. However, if the user continues to depress the test button, the detector will run its internal self-test, typically resulting in the sounding of the hazardous condition detector alarm. Once the alarm has sounded the user knows that the hazardous condition detector is functioning properly and may release the button.
While such a test may be completed by the user in less than a minute, the requirement that the user test each and every one of the distributed hazardous condition detectors within the dwelling or structure becomes quite time consuming. Further, since the test button is typically located on the actual detector itself, and since most detectors are mounted on the ceiling, the user also typically needs to utilize a step ladder to reach the detector test button. This effort combined with the time for each individual test, while minimal in comparison to the safety features provided, often results in the user not conducting the recommended functionality tests of the hazardous condition detectors. This may result in a situation where some of the hazardous condition detectors may not be functional without the user being aware of the lack of protection provided thereby. Further, even if such tests are performed on each individual detector, the user cannot be assured that they will all sound if one of them detects a hazard because these individual tests do not test their interconnection.
To overcome this problem, many hazardous condition detectors include the capability to transmit a signal to the other interconnected hazardous condition detectors if the test button remains depressed once the hazardous condition detector has completed its self-test. The interconnected detectors, upon receipt of the signal, will sound their alarms just as if it had received a signal from a hazardous condition detector that had detected a hazardous condition. In this way, the user can be assured that the interconnection between these hazardous condition detectors and/or their ability to communicate have not been compromised.
Unfortunately, such a system may actually provide a false sense of security to the user. This is because the signal provided to the interconnected detectors does not actually result in these interconnected detectors running any type of internal diagnostic test. Instead, the received signal is used by these interconnected detectors merely to sound the alarm to alert the user of the fact that another detector has actually detected a hazardous condition. In actuality, however, this interconnected detector may well be malfunctioning such that it is incapable of detecting a hazardous condition itself. As such, the user is still required to physically go to each of the interconnected hazardous condition detectors and depress the self-test button to be able to determine the operability of each of the detectors. However, as discussed above, such a requirement often results in the tests not being run as recommended, resulting in the failure to replace non-functioning detectors.
While the interconnect test method is effective to test the integrity of the interconnection between the hazardous condition detectors themselves, the user may be unable to tell if the test is successfully passed or not. This is because the only indication of test success is the sounding of the remote detectors' alarm. However, so long as its self-test button is depressed, the hazardous condition detector will continue to sound its alarm. Since a typical hazardous condition alarm is at least 85 db, the user who is standing close enough to the detector to actually depress its self-test button is unlikely to be able to hear the alarm of the remotely located hazardous condition detectors. This is particularly true when the remotely located hazardous condition detectors are installed on other floors of a multi-story dwelling or in remote locations.
As a result, the current testing methods are wholly ineffective for testing anything other than the particular hazardous condition detector whose self-test button has been depressed. As such, the user is still required to physically go to each hazardous condition detector and perform its own self-test. As indicated above, however, such a requirement will typically result in the system not being tested by the user as recommended due to the time and hassle involved in physically going to each remotely located hazardous condition detector, climbing on the step ladder, and holding the self-test button for a time sufficient to complete that detector's internal self diagnostic test. Even if this were done, however, the user still cannot be assured that the interconnection between the hazardous condition detectors has not been compromised.
Therefore, there exists a need in the art for a reliable and effective method to test the integrity of the interconnection between remotely located hazardous condition detectors and to test the remotely located hazardous condition detectors themselves without requiring the user to physically access each such remotely located hazardous condition detector.
These and other advantages of the invention, as well as additional inventive features, will be apparent from the description of the invention provided herein.